The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Directed by Francis Lawrence.

2013. Rated PG-13, 146 minutes.

Cast:

Jennifer Lawrence

Josh Hutcherson

Woody Harrelson

Donald Sutherland

Phillip Seymour Hoffman

Elizabeth Banks

Jeffrey Wright

Stanley Tucci

Lenny Kravitz

Liam Hemsworth

Jena Malone

Katniss (Lawrence) and Peeta (Hutcherson) are the darlings of the twelve districts after winning the most recent Hunger Games in rather unconventional fashion. President Snow (Sutherland) is quite pissed about it. After all, it was their suddenly blooming love that forced the games to end in such an unorthodox fashion, leaving him and the Capitol looking a bit foolish. This wouldn't be quite so bad if his instincts didn't tell him, correctly, that their relationship is a fraud. He tells Katniss they better play nice for the cameras for the rest of their lives or heads will most definitely, and literally, roll. Those heads belong to her family and friends, of course. Since even that doesn't squash her defiant personality, and the people have made her a symbol of hope, President Snow changes the rules, putting her and Peeta into the next year's games. Their competition this time is made up of prior winners.

One of the things this movie does better than its predecessor is get to the point. That first flick took forever to actually get to the Hunger Games. I understand that in the first movie of a franchise, the setup typically does take longer than it does in sequels. However, in that first flick, it feels unnecessarily long. Like a dog dragging a broken leg, it limped along slowly while we watched Katniss is wardrobe, practicing, and being a talk show guest. Repeatedly. Thankfully, we spend much less time in talk show mode. Generally speaking, I love watching Stanley Tucci perform. In this series, as the host of said talk show, he's just an annoyance. I understand what is trying to be accomplished with this character. It's just not working for me.

Tucci aside, another plus for Catching Fire is the acting of its supporting cast. This more mature group gives us more interesting characters and better portrayals of them. The two standouts being Jeffrey Wright and Jena Malone. Malone gives us someone we're not sure how to take. Wright does what he normally does and disappears into his character. Another newcomer, the late Philip Seymour Hoffman, is his usual excellent self as the Game Master. Among the returnees, Woody Harrelson and Donald Suther land are again very fun to watch. Surprisingy, so is Elizabeth Banks, once more in full drag-queen regalia.

Unfortunately, once we get to the games, it's the stretches between action where this movie, and the series as a whole, continues to fail. These are the times when Katniss and her allies plot the next move and get to know each other a little better. It should also be the time during which the tension is building until that next burst of excitement releases it. Instead, that tension dissipates as the scenes drag on, trying and failing, to establish emotional bonds between the characters. Part of this is due to Katniss herself. We know she cares about her friends and family. However, she comes across so coldly to everyone else that no one else's plight seems to resonate with her until it becomes an imminent part of her own survival. In other words, if she doesn't really care about them until the very moment her life depends on their ability, why should we?

Finally, where the first movie positions itself as social commentary, Catching Fire seems to lack any such aspirations. This is partly due to it being the second movie of what we know will be a quadrilogy. What it is trying to say may become more transparent after subsequent installments are released. No, I didn't read the books and please, do not explain it to me. Another reason is this movie's focus on being a "bigger" movie than its predecessor. It does more, but says less. Still, it is the doing more that makes this a more enjoyable movie than its predecessor. By breezing through the setup quicker, we get a more concise effort, even though it's actually a few minutes longer than the first film. We still hit some snags, but fans of the first should be pleased.

Lee Daniels' The Butler

Directed by Lee Daniels.

2013. Rated PG-13, 132 minutes.

Cast:

Forest Whitaker

Oprah Winfrey

David Oyelowo

Yaya Alafia

Cuba Gooding Jr.

Lenny Kravitz

John Cusack

Liev Schreiber

James Marsden

Terrence Howard

Minka Kelly

Jane Fonda

Vanessa Redgrave

Mariah Carey

Alex Pettyfer

Colman Domingo

Clarence Williams III

Elijah Kelley

Robin Williams

Alan Rickman

David Banner

We proceed through the life and times of Cecil Gaines (Whitaker). Mr. Gaines works in the White House as a butler beginning during the Eisenhower (Williams) administration and finishing during the Reagan (Rickman) years. As a very young child he witnesses atrocities in the Jim Crow South while working as a cotton picker on a plantation. Due to one specific tragedy, he is made a house servant. When he gets older, he leaves the plantation and heads north a bit where he works as a server in a private club. He is so good that he lands that White House gig. At home, things between he and his wife Gloria (Winfrey) are strained by all of his long hours at work. He also has a contentious relationship with his eldest son Louis (Oyelowo). The two see the world very differently. Part of our story follows Louis as he is literally becomes a major part of just about every front of the Civil Rights struggles of the 20th century. The rest, of course, deals with Cecil's duties in the White House, the stress on his marriage and plenty of acrimony between he and Louis.

Right away, we're told The Butler is inspired by a true story. Let's tackle this first. The key word is "inspired." The real butler is a man named Eugene Allen. He most certainly did serve in that capacity in the White House for 34 years. However, not much else is rooted in fact. If you're wondering what is and what isn't, I'll not go into too many details to maintain some form of brevity. Suffice it to say most things that happen outside the White House are fiction wrapped in a cloak of history while what happens inside it is plausibly, possibly, kinda, sorta true. From what I've read, our hero's relationship with the Reagans is the most factual, followed by his rapport with the Kennedys. However, none of this should cloud your judgement. In my opinion, you shouldn't deem the movie to be better or worse than it actually is because more or less of it is true than you think. Let's move on.

What the movie does best is position Cecil against the people he loves. He is a man that works long and hard to provide for his family in a material sense. On the other hand, he's absent from them emotionally. We watch his marriage falter and wonder if he is even aware of what's happening. He does know of her battle with the bottle, but there is more going on than that. With his oldest son, it is a never-ending war of wills. They bark disagreements at one another until it eventually becomes too much for them to occupy the same room. Even though both situations are overly melodramatic, this is where The Butler is most consistently good. Star Forest Whitaker and David Oyelowo are sufficiently angry and deliver fine performances. However, it's a truly remarkable Oprah Winfrey that glues this kitchen sink drama together and makes it go. Hers is the film's most complex and satisfying portrayal.

The movie stumbles over the one thing that was hyped before it was even released: its highlight reel of Black History. It simply fails to pack the punch necessary to give the film its intended power. Much of it is sped through and oversimplified, but doesn't linger long enough to impact the viewer who hasn't already been impacted. In other words, our prior knowledge, or lack thereof, plays heavily into how we feel without much prompting from the film. Early on, we're shown an earth-shattering event. However, that's really it. It's just a moment. Following this, the movie goes into 'tell us stuff we already know' mode by using Cecil to narrate. He basically says "This sucks. I'm outta here," just in a lot more empty words. The only historic part where the movie slows down and breathes is during Louis' time as a Freedom Rider. We see him go through the intense training for and then the harsh reality of staging a sit-in. After that, it's back to warp speed as there's a brief mention of Malcolm X, a stint in the Black Panther Party (incorrectly lumped together as being of identical philosophies, I might add), and failed political endeavors. What this does is sticks closely to mainstream America's very broad ideas of the many facets of the movement which helped shape society. In doing so, it commits a common error. That mistake is pushing the belief that only the aspects of the Civil Rights Movement that were associated with, and/or under the direction of, Martin Luther King Jr. are worth discussing. At least on the surface.

Beneath the surface, what's really going on is that the movie is simply using all of this as a plot device to develop the romance between Louis and Carol (Alafia, formerly Da Costa), a young woman he meets in college and goes through most of his phases with him. Even this is botched, often feeling awkward and eventually unnecessary as it ends unceremoniously without the 'oomph' the movie seems to be reaching for at all times. The one good thing we get out of it is an explosive dinner scene when the two visit Louis' parents. Again, thank Oprah for making this moment.

The Cliff Notes treatment is given to Cecil's younger son Charlie (Kelley) and another major event in our nation's history, The Vietnam War. The poor kid is barely in the picture. He and the war can be summed up in three short sentences. People didn't know why we were there. People protested. Soldiers died. Something else we already know. By sticking to this, the movie telegraphs its blow and fails to make me care as much as I should. The punches that floor you are the ones you don't see coming. This one starts with a huge wind-up that's impossible to miss. The truth of the matter is some of the issues could have been alleviated by telling the story through Louis' eyes. That would likely force some things to be fleshed out instead of skimmed over. Besides, Louis is a far more interesting character than his one-note father. Of course, this might give us a completely different film than the director intended.

Fortunately, all parts of The Butler are well acted. Terrence Howard gives us a great slimeball while Cuba Gooding Jr. shines as the comic relief. Also funny is Liev Schreiber as an abrasive Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson. James Marsden does a spot-on JFK, but it's Minka Kelly as Jacqueline Kennedy that gives us one of the movie's most heartfelt moments. It's another instance nearly ruined by too much narration, but it still manages to work.

By the end, this is a movie that feels oddly bloated and deflated all at once. The stronger parts of the movie are a bit overdone while the weaker parts are half-baked. The narration usually states the obvious, robbing prior or upcoming scenes of power. Finally, it wraps itself up in a nice, neat bow of sentimentality. Honestly, given the importance of the occasion, I can hardly blame it. However, the impact of these scenes depends largely on how you already feel about that occasion. They don't supply any of their own juice. Thankfully, the whole thing is well performed and very well paced. The run time flies by and we enjoy the people with whom we're spending time. This makes it a solid movie that takes looks at important parts of our collective past. Just understand that, for the most part, these are fleeting looks.

The Hunger Games

Directed by Gary Ross.

2012. Rated PG-13, 142 minutes.

Cast:

Jennifer Lawrence

Josh Hutcherson

Liam Hemsworth

Woody Harrelson

Elizabeth Banks

Stanley Tucci

Lenny Kravitz

Donald Sutherland

Wes Bentley

Isabelle Fuhrman

Willow Shields

Paula Malcomson

Once a year, as penance for an earlier uprising against The Capitol, each of the 12 districts in the post-apocalyptic nation of Panem is required to send one male and one female between the ages of 12 and 18 to participate in The Hunger Games. The 24 “tributes” are shipped off to the Capitol where they’ll train for a couple weeks than head out into the forest where they will literally try to out survive each other. Yes, this means only one of them will leave these battlegrounds alive and be crowned the winner. This person will then be showered with copious amounts of fame and fortune.

The kids are chosen at their annual “Reaping.” Basically, all the adolescents have their name thrown into a bin from which two unlucky contestants are drawn. This year in District 12, barely eligible and obviously weak Primrose Everdeen (Shields) gets picked. Valiantly, her older and sturdier sister Katniss (Lawrence) volunteers to go in her place. It helps her chances that she’s an expert with a bow and arrow. She’ll be joined by Peeta (Hutcherson). No one is kind enough to volunteer for his spot. Off they go to The Capitol. Oh, I almost forgot: they travel with Effie Trinket, one of the district’s head honchos. I only mention her because she’s played by ElizabethBanks in full drag-queen regalia. Also with them is their appointed coach Haymitch Abernathy (Harrelson). He’s a past winner and obviously jaded by the experience.

We get a lengthy section on our heroine training, learning how strong some of the others are, how to play nice with the higher-ups and being introduced to the world. Sorry, I failed to mention that “The Hunger Games” are televised throughout the country. After more than sufficient build-up, we finally get to the games. Teenagers trying to kill each other ensues.

On the surface, it’s a fine movie. The setup is a bit too long as it is working really hard to make sure we like Katniss. Much of it is extraneous energy since she has us wrapped around her finger the moment she volunteers. This part of the film also makes sure we know who the favorites to win are. By default, they serve as villains. We also get to meet a few bad guys who will stay behind the scenes. This way, we’re fully vested in Katniss by the time the action begins. Like I said, it’s overdone but it’s still effective.

For some of us, there is the proverbial 800 pound gorilla in the room: Battle Royale. For those unaware, BR is a 2000 Japanese film with pretty much the same premise. A group of ninth graders are made to go off into the woods and terminate one another until only one remains in the land of the living. The way things play out in both movies makes The Hunger Games essentially a remake, or re-imagining, with a bigger budget, more screen time for adults and far more extravagant costuming.

That said, there is a major difference between the two movies: what they choose to be a metaphor for. BR is a microcosm of the way teenagers interact with one another and of adolescence itself. The cliquish nature of high school and hyperactive teen angst take center stage. THG ignores those things as much as possible. Instead, it’s a riff on our ever-expanding fascination with and the proliferation of reality television. It takes square aim at the logical evolution of a genre in which the stakes are constantly being raised. This is a solid, though still not quite fresh, topic for people in the target audience. However, for those of us old enough to remember such films, it lacks the depth and originality of such fare as The Truman Show or The Running Man.

Taken on its own terms, THG is a solid flick with slightly more on its mind than your average popcorn flick. Still, it never gets preachy. After all, social commentary is not the main purpose here, engaging and entertaining us through a likeable protagonist is. The other purpose is precisely like almost all other big blockbuster movies: setting us up for the sequel.

MY SCORE: 6.5/10

Precious Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire

Directed by Lee Daniels.
2009. Rated R, 110 minutes.
Cast:
Gabourey Sidibe
Mo'Nique
Paula Patton
Lenny Kravitz
Stephanie Andujar
Chyna Lane
Mariah Carey
Sherri Shepherd
Armina Robinson

Plot: 16 year-old Precious (Sidibe) tries to navigate life through a maze of abuse.

The Good: Realism jumps off the screen. Every word of it simply feels true. This makes the fantasies Precious uses as a way to endure pain extremely effective and sad. Sidibe pulls off each emotion flawlessly, in the lead role. However, as good as she is, the movie would go nowhere without the powerhouse performance of Mo'Nique as her mom. She never makes a false acting choice and really brings the movie home during its closing moments. It's a role in which she could've easily pushed too much and come off as cartoonishly psychotic. To her credit, and the movie's benefit, she never crosses that line. This makes [i]Precious[/i] a true-to-life horror film and her character, a splendid villain. Also to the movie's benefit, it doesn't take the easy way out. To the contrary, when the end-credits start rolling, Precious is in a better place than when we first meet her but there is much uncertainty about her future. Her life can go in any number of different directions, some good and some bad.

The Bad: With an almost all-female cast, it falls into what I call "The Color Purple Trap." In that movie about a similarly abused woman, men generally come off as the enemy. Here, there are only a few male characters, the father, some guys that hang out in front of a building Precious has to pass every day and Nurse John. Only Nurse John, a surprisingly pretty decent acting Lenny Kravitz by the way, has any redeeming qualities whatsoever. However, even he is of needlessly ambiguous purpose. Finally, the relationship between Precious' mom and grand-mom could've been explored a little further, shedding more light on what may have happened before our hero was even born.

The Ugly: Her dad's parting gift.

Recommendation: This is a movie that repeatedly hits you over the head with its very ugly truth and it never pulls any punches. Though its qualified as a family drama, even a chick-flick, it's really an urban horror film, frightening and heart-wrenching because this may be going on next door. One of my favorite "scary" movies is Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. Its power lies in the fact that Henry is not Freddy Krueger or Jason of some other supernatural killing machine but someone so unassuming you might have sat next to him at a bar or in a diner and completely forgotten about unless he were actually trying to kill you. There are no serial killers here, but the fear generated is much the same. Therefore, we feel each tragedy and triumph with our hero and our thoughts about what will happen to her next linger on, after the movie has ended.

The Opposite View: Dana Stevens, Slate

What the Internet Says: 7.5/10 on imdb.com (7/24/10), 91% on rottentomatoes.com, 79/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 10/10